That's been done on occasion by vendors before, but with the POS software I've used, that doesn't work. Either it uses the current scale weight (and you have part of the weight still in hand when you're scanning), or the scale is empty so it asks for a manual weight (which isn't exactly something that can be done at a self-scan).
Said POS software is also well-deserving of the POS acronym, however.:)
Here in Switzerland they do trust the customer. In the 7 years that I've been living here, NOTHING has ever been re-weighed!
Maybe not that you've noticed, but generally, with self-serve checkouts (which are the type the GP was talking about), the entire bagging platform is a scale.
That depends on how granular it gets. It sounds like it could only narrow it down to "apple" or "tomato"; the weird stuff that drove me batty as a cashier would probably just come up as "weedy thing"...
More work for me, I assume more profit for the supermarket instead of lower prices, and I get to pay for somebody's unemployment/retraining.
Possibly more profit for the store, assuming that's not offset by the cost of the machines. But frankly, you're not paying for anybody's unemployment; corporate wouldn't pay to have more cashiers without the self-checkouts (since they often don't pay to have enough with them!). The customers would just wait in longer lines.
The license fee is around ten pounds a month. This is less than the cost of a daily newspaper, for example, and a lot less than any premium TV channels. In exchange for this you get seven ad-free TV channels (I think - I don't own a TV anymore), a world-class internet news site, and a number of radio channels.
But you don't have the option of watching the non-ad-free channels like Channel 4 without paying the fee. That certainly sounds like "little to no recourse" to me.
If they don't use it for a certain amount of time, it should be up for grabs for someone who does want to use it. Five, ten years?
Otherwise, if it's in active use, I agree.
Yes, I believe that you're entitled to a refund, and that the person offering the license should be required to provide a refund if you don't agree to the license.
That said, the last couple I've read, from Atari, have said that anybody not agreeing with the EULA should contact them for a refund, not the retailer. I don't know how unique they are in that, but at least somebody's being reasonable.
It's possible that the Softman reasoning could be stretched to cover EULAs in general, but I don't think it's likely. but I'm hardly a legal expert, much less a lawyer, so my opinion there really isn't worth much.:)
Except Softman wasn't the end user, and they weren't ever presented with the EULA, much less agreed to it. That's very different from anybody installing Mac OS X on their own machine, where they are presented with the EULA, and do agree to it.
I did. Acting like copyright would mean that they would own your pictures. This is a license to take them, much like you're required to get a license if you want to broadcast in the EM spectrum outside of a certain reserved range.
It has nothing to do with copyright.
The NOAA is a regulatory agency similar to the FCC or the FAA: there to make life more difficult for everybody, while doing nothing useful in the process.
I always wondered that if all human knowledge/evidence was lost, books, video clips etc. (With one exception) and a handful of humans survived, with no prior knowledge of anything before themselves except a grasp of English, and these people were to find the only surviving books, a complete works of J. R. R. Tolkien, what the hell religion would be like then.
Very strange, if S. M. Stirling's Dies the Fire is any indication.
You wouldn't see any significant discount on the PS3 by removing the Blu-ray video functionality; you couldn't lose the Blu-ray drive because games are using the extra space, so you'd only lose the video decoding/output.
It's currently slated as a September release, meaning it'll start showing up late August; while it's probably technically possible to kill it at this point, since S&S should already be printing the books I don't think they'd do so without putting up a fuss.
'If it were a government contract, it would be illegal to be paid twice, once by the government and a second time by consumers.'
Except, with the game sure to cost far more than $3 million, they're really only being paid once.
Slashdot Mirror
A self-checkout may not improve the experience in a qualitative manner, but it does tend to reduce the wait time at the checkouts.
As for when the item doesn't have a barcode—that's what the cashier is there for.
That's been done on occasion by vendors before, but with the POS software I've used, that doesn't work. Either it uses the current scale weight (and you have part of the weight still in hand when you're scanning), or the scale is empty so it asks for a manual weight (which isn't exactly something that can be done at a self-scan).
Said POS software is also well-deserving of the POS acronym, however. :)
In my experience, as both customer and cashier, you're just unlucky.
Here in Switzerland they do trust the customer. In the 7 years that I've been living here, NOTHING has ever been re-weighed!
Maybe not that you've noticed, but generally, with self-serve checkouts (which are the type the GP was talking about), the entire bagging platform is a scale.
That depends on how granular it gets. It sounds like it could only narrow it down to "apple" or "tomato"; the weird stuff that drove me batty as a cashier would probably just come up as "weedy thing"...
More work for me, I assume more profit for the supermarket instead of lower prices, and I get to pay for somebody's unemployment/retraining.
Possibly more profit for the store, assuming that's not offset by the cost of the machines. But frankly, you're not paying for anybody's unemployment; corporate wouldn't pay to have more cashiers without the self-checkouts (since they often don't pay to have enough with them!). The customers would just wait in longer lines.
Unfortunately, that's a point that seems to go whooshing over the heads of many a Linux zealot.
The license fee is around ten pounds a month. This is less than the cost of a daily newspaper, for example, and a lot less than any premium TV channels. In exchange for this you get seven ad-free TV channels (I think - I don't own a TV anymore), a world-class internet news site, and a number of radio channels. But you don't have the option of watching the non-ad-free channels like Channel 4 without paying the fee. That certainly sounds like "little to no recourse" to me.
As long as the shrinkwrap remains intact, sure. But Psystar is actively installing OS X, which is an act requiring agreement to the license.
They let you write apps to be shared without going through the app store, but you need to purchase their "corporate" developer's license.
Nothing that I'm aware of; I was replying to p0tat03's suggestion in the abstract.
If they don't use it for a certain amount of time, it should be up for grabs for someone who does want to use it. Five, ten years? Otherwise, if it's in active use, I agree.
Yes, I believe that you're entitled to a refund, and that the person offering the license should be required to provide a refund if you don't agree to the license.
That said, the last couple I've read, from Atari, have said that anybody not agreeing with the EULA should contact them for a refund, not the retailer. I don't know how unique they are in that, but at least somebody's being reasonable.
It's possible that the Softman reasoning could be stretched to cover EULAs in general, but I don't think it's likely. but I'm hardly a legal expert, much less a lawyer, so my opinion there really isn't worth much. :)
Except Softman wasn't the end user, and they weren't ever presented with the EULA, much less agreed to it. That's very different from anybody installing Mac OS X on their own machine, where they are presented with the EULA, and do agree to it.
With that explanation of what you meant, I see your point, so I shan't. :)
I did. Acting like copyright would mean that they would own your pictures. This is a license to take them, much like you're required to get a license if you want to broadcast in the EM spectrum outside of a certain reserved range.
It has nothing to do with copyright. The NOAA is a regulatory agency similar to the FCC or the FAA: there to make life more difficult for everybody, while doing nothing useful in the process.
I always wondered that if all human knowledge/evidence was lost, books, video clips etc. (With one exception) and a handful of humans survived, with no prior knowledge of anything before themselves except a grasp of English, and these people were to find the only surviving books, a complete works of J. R. R. Tolkien, what the hell religion would be like then.
Very strange, if S. M. Stirling's Dies the Fire is any indication.
You wouldn't see any significant discount on the PS3 by removing the Blu-ray video functionality; you couldn't lose the Blu-ray drive because games are using the extra space, so you'd only lose the video decoding/output.
It's currently slated as a September release, meaning it'll start showing up late August; while it's probably technically possible to kill it at this point, since S&S should already be printing the books I don't think they'd do so without putting up a fuss.
Maybe with Verizon it did, but Road Runner is dropping Usenet entirelly by the end of the month.
Rectums are tubes...
'If it were a government contract, it would be illegal to be paid twice, once by the government and a second time by consumers.' Except, with the game sure to cost far more than $3 million, they're really only being paid once.
The macros should work fine in 2007, but they won't work in 2008 for the Mac.
It's not that they're phasing them out of the GPL'd branch; these are new features that were never GPL'd in the first place.